masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Centurion
Delete There is way to little information here to warrant a full article.--Legionwrex 21:03, June 19, 2011 (UTC) :You know I was only kidding on the Atlas Mech talk page, right? Besides, this article is going to be improved upon later, once developers release more information. LordDeathRay 21:04, June 19, 2011 (UTC) ::And once that happens we will make the article but for now we need to delete it.One sentence doesn't make an article.--Legionwrex 21:09, June 19, 2011 (UTC) :::2 sentences, Shirlock. I also dislike the trend of deleting articles when we know that they will be improved upon later. ESPECIALLY WHEN THE DELETE TAGS ARE MADE BY SOMEONE WHO ISN'T AN ADMIN. Gah. LordDeathRay 21:14, June 19, 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the insult.--Legionwrex 21:20, June 19, 2011 (UTC) :How exactly did I insult you? If I did, I'm sorry. LordDeathRay 21:23, June 19, 2011 (UTC) ::"Two sentences, Shirlock".--Legionwrex 21:25, June 19, 2011 (UTC) :::But thats not the piont, this is getting out of hand.Lets just talk about the deletion.--Legionwrex 21:26, June 19, 2011 (UTC) ::::I fail to understand what to discuss about... LordDeathRay 21:27, June 19, 2011 (UTC) Ok before this goes further, please both of you take a step back and calm down a bit. I'll make another comment in a minute, but this had to be said. Lancer1289 21:29, June 19, 2011 (UTC) Now to make a few comments. :First, the "2 sentences, Shirlock " was a bit unnecessary, and I can see how it could come across as insulting, so let's just refrain from comments like that in the future, ok. Please? We don't want to escalate the situation and derail the conversation, but unfortunately we are all guilty of that at some point, even if it wasn't our intent. :Second, anyone can put an article up for deletion, whether it be an Unregistered Contributor or someone else. While yes it usually is admins, anyone can put an article up for anything, whether it be split (which reminds me of something), delete, redirect, move, or merge. Delete tags are not admin tools. :Third, I currently have to agree with the delete proposal on two reasons. First reason: There isn't enough information. We can form two sentences, but that's about it. Second Reason: This can come to a name issue. We do know from Casey Hudson, or Jesse Houston, or both, that the demos at E3 were simplified versions of the game, and not everything shown there was the be all, end all. Names could change in nine months. Well that's all I got. Lancer1289 21:40, June 19, 2011 (UTC) Ah okay. I'm sorry legionwrex. I'll refrain from using that in the future. LordDeathRay 21:42, June 19, 2011 (UTC) :Well now I feel like I have got you into trouble,so i'm sorry for that and for my snide reply.--Legionwrex 21:46, June 19, 2011 (UTC) Oppose deletion, partially for rather selfish reasons (I did create this article after all, I'd like to defend it), but also because as other users have pointed out elsewhere, there's a trend to delete articles which can and should be expanded instead. I'm usually not one to drag in the "other wikis do it" argument, but other wikis do allow stub articles for subjects which have been confirmed to exist from reliable sources, and I think there's no harm in that. I can see a case being made for deletion if this article's name was conjecture or we had no sources, but the name of this enemy comes directly from the demos. I think it's a reasonable assumption that a name change is no more likely than any other element of the demo changing. We can assume the omni-blades will stay in the final version of ME3, can we not? Why not another element of the demos? Why not an enemy's name? So that's my case, let's see what happens. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:22, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :Agreed. Oppose deletion. The Illusive Man 02:05, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :: Lets list what we know about this enemy.1st.Its called the centurion.2nd.It has shields.Yeah I don't think that makes a full article.I voted for the cannibal to stay because it had just enough information to make an article and we know what it's abilities are.AS for the Centurion we know that it mignt have shields and it might be called the centurion thats it.So lets try to think rationally on why to delete it and not for "rather selfish reasons".Out.--Legionwrex 03:54, June 20, 2011 (UTC) So lets recap.Its 2 for deletion and 3 against.--Legionwrex 03:58, June 20, 2011 (UTC) : 4 against. SlayerEGO1342 04:04, June 20, 2011 (UTC) At which point in the video source do I actually see the Centurion? Can't seem to see it. — Teugene (Talk) 05:16, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :The sole Centurion in the demo appears at 1:19. He's the only enemy with shields. -- Commdor (Talk) 05:20, June 20, 2011 (UTC) ::Ah got it. I'm in favour of keeping this page. — Teugene (Talk) 08:13, June 20, 2011 (UTC) Recap.2 for.5 against.--Legionwrex 16:37, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :Support but in a different capacity. If we want to keep them, then I say for the time being we put it all on the Assault Trooper page (Guardian and Centurion). As they are variations. Until more information comes, we can lump them all together as parts of the Cerberus hit squads. This keeps the known information visible and also gives a starting point for when we divide them up later with relevant stats, abilities and combat information. If you don't want to do that, then I oppose deletion. Because again, this is something that looks to be true, and every page needs to start somewhere.--Xaero Dumort 03:45, June 21, 2011 (UTC) I support the deletion proposal, but at this point, it's irrelevant. Even counting my vote, the page squeaks by with a 5-4 vote, and stays. SpartHawg948 09:37, June 26, 2011 (UTC) Nice armor. I wish you could use it. It's looks so awesome!!!!!! --Dantanius 14:59, August 17, 2011 (UTC) :Comments like this belong in the forums or a blog post as this isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 15:00, August 17, 2011 (UTC)